UNION BANK OF INDIA Vs. SATYA WATI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is tenant's petition against whom ejectment application was dismissed by the Rent Controller but eviction was ordered in appeal.

(2.) VIDE rent note, dated 24th April, 1972, the residential building, being H. No. 157, situate in Lajpat Rai Nagar, Jalandhar, was given on rent to the Union Bank of India for a monthly rent of Rs. 650/-. The ejectment application was filed in January, 1981, primarily on the ground that the landlord bonafide required the premises for her own use and occupation and for the members of her family. It was pleaded that she was having her business, etc., at Jalandhar, being the Director of a company, and she had to live in the premises in dispute so that she may attend to the business effectively; that she had been living temporarily with her son at Rourkela, which is a far off place, and her health did not allow her to undertake frequent and strenuous journeys for the purpose, and that she was not occupying any other residential building within the municipal limits of Jalandhar and nor had she vacated any such building in the said area without sufficient cause after the commencement of the East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, 1949. In the Written Statement, it was pleaded that the landlady did not require the premises for her own use and occupation but as a matter of fact, she wanted to increase the rent for which she had been making representations verbally as well as in writing. The learned Rent Controller found that the landlady had failed to prove that she bonafide required the premises for her own use and occupation. Consequently, the ejectment application was dismissed. In appeal, the Appellate Authority reversed the finding of the Rent Controller and found that the landlady required the premises for her own use and occupation bonafide. The plea of the tenant that she wanted to increase the rent in the year 1976 vide letter, dated 14th September, 1976, was of no consequence as the application had been filed in the year 1981, when the requirement to occupy the premises arose. With the finding, the eviction order was passed.

(3.) AFTER hearing the learned counsel for the petitioner and going through the relevant evidence on record, I do not find any illegality or impropriety with findings of the Appellate Authority. All the contentions raised on behalf of the tenant have been duly considered by the Appellate Authority. It has been found that her son-in-law who had been earlier residing at Jalandhar had been transferred; otherwise also she could not stay with her daughter or nephew as a matter of right. The landlady who is aged 70 years travelled all the way from Rourkela to Jalandhar, and this could not be a matter of fun or pleasure for her. Consequently, it was held that the requirement of landlord was bonafide. Apart from it, the tenant is a bank and in case the landlady wanted to enhance the rent she could not get a better customer than the bank. This also goes a long way to prove that the landlady really wanted to occupy the premises for her own use and occupation. In this view of the matter, the petition fails and is dismissed with costs.